Chpt4 ThConsumer Satisfaction Theories a Critical Revieweories (1)

Customer Satisfaction: Conceptual Issues

Consumer Satisfaction Theories: A Critical Review

Atila Yüksel & Fisun Yüksel

Adnan Menderes University

Introduction

The marketing and consumer behavior literature has traditionally suggested that

customer satisfaction is a relative concept, and is always judged in relation to a standard

(Olander, 1977). Consequently, in the course of its development, a number of different

competing theories based on various standards have been postulated for explaining customer

satisfaction. The theories include the Expectancy-Disconfirmation Paradigm (EDP), the

Value-Precept Theory, the Attribution Theory, the Equity Theory, the Comparison Level

Theory, the Evaluation Congruity Theory, the Person-Situation-Fit model, the Performance-

Importance model, the Dissonance, and the Contrast Theory.

Early researchers, including Engel, Kollat & Blackwell (1968), Howard & Sheth

(1969), & Cardozzo (1965), relied on the dissonance theory developed by Festinger (1957).

Subsequent studies (Anderson, 1973; Olshavsky & Miller, 1972) drew on the assimilation-

contrast theories proposed by Sheriff & Hovland (1961). Later, Oliver (1977), drawing on the

adaptation level theory (Helson, 1964), developed the Expectancy-Disconfirmation model for

the study of consumer satisfaction, which received the widest acceptance among researchers.

These frameworks generally imply conscious comparison between a cognitive state prior to an

event and a subsequent cognitive state, usually realized after the event is experienced (Oliver,

1980). Following the introduction of the EDP, Westbrook & Reilly (1983) proposed the

Value-Precept theory as a competing framework to study consumer satisfaction, arguing that

what is expected from a product may not correspond to what is desired and valued in a

product, and thus, values may be better comparative standards as opposed to expectations

used in the EDP. In addition, Sirgy (1984) proposed the Evaluative Congruity model as

another competing framework to explain consumer satisfaction. According to Chon (1992),

the Evaluative Congruity Model is a better framework than the EDP because of its ability in

capturing the different states of satisfaction/ dissatisfaction resulting from different

Chapter 4 – Yüksel and Yüksel

combinations of expectations and performance outcome. Last decades also saw the

development of a number of additional frameworks such as the Attribution Theory,

Importance-Performance model, and the Equity Theory for the study of consumer satisfaction.

It is important to note that some of the posited theories have received intensive attention in the

literature (for example, the EDP), while others have not provoked further empirical research

(Oh & Parks 1997). The following section undertakes a critical review of these theories

postulated to explain consumer satisfaction, as this is important to the development of the

research.

The Dissonance Theory

The Dissonance Theory suggests that a person who expected a high-value product

and received a low-value product would recognize the disparity and experience a cognitive

dissonance (Cardozzo, 1965). That is, the disconfirmed expectations create a state of

dissonance or a psychological discomfort (Yi, 1990). According to this theory, the existence

of dissonance produces pressures for its reduction, which could be achieved by adjusting the

perceived disparity. This theory holds that "post exposure ratings are primarily a function of

the expectation level because the task of recognizing disconfirmation is believed to be

psychologically uncomfortable. Thus consumers are posited to perceptually distort

expectation-discrepant performance so as to coincide with their prior expectation level"

(Oliver, 1977, p. 480). For instance, if a disparity exists between product expectations and

product performance, consumers may have a psychological tension and try to reduce it by

changing their perception of the product (Yi, 1990). Cardozzo argues that consumers may

raise their evaluations of those products when the cost of that product to the individual is high.

For example, suppose that a customer goes into a restaurant, which she or he expects it to be

good, and is confronted with an unappetizing meal. The consumer, who had driven a long

distance and paid a high price for the meal, in order to reduce the dissonance, might say that

the food was not really as bad as it appeared or she likes overcooked meal, etc.

The researchers pursued this approach implicitly assume that consumers would

generally find that product performance deviated in some respect from their expectations or

effort expenditures and that some cognitive repositioning would be required (Oliver, 1980).

This theory has not gained much support from researchers, partly because it is not clear

whether consumers would engage in such discrepancy adjustments as the model predicts in


every consumption situation. In his criticism of the Dissonance theory, Oliver (1977), for

instance, argues that "Generally, it is agreed that satisfaction results from a comparison

between X, one’s expectation, and Y, product performance. Thus, it is the magnitude and

direction of this difference, which affects one’s post-decision affect level. X serves only to

provide the comparative baseline. Moreover, consumers are under no particular pressure to

resolve the X-Y difference. In fact, satisfaction/dissatisfaction is thought to arise from

recognition and acknowledgement of dissonance" (p. 206).

If the Dissonance Theory holds true, then companies should strive to raise

expectations substantially above the product performance in order to obtain a higher product

evaluation (Yi, 1990). However, the validity of this assumption is questionable. Raising

expectations substantially above the product performance and failing to meet these

expectations may backfire, as small discrepancies may be largely discounted while large

discrepancies may result in a very negative evaluation. This suggestion fails to take into

account the concept of "tolerance level". The tolerance level suggests that purchasers are

willing to accept a range of performance around a point estimate as long as the range could be

reasonably expected. When perceptions of a brand performance, which are close to the norm

(initial expectation), are within the latitude of acceptable performance, and then it may be

assimilated toward the norm (Woodruff et al 1983). That is, perceived performance within

some interval around a performance norm is likely to be considered equivalent to the norm.

However, when the distance from this norm is great enough, that is perceived performance is

outside the acceptable zone, then brand performance will be perceived as different from the

norm, which, in contrast to this model's assumption, will cause dissatisfaction not a high

product evaluation.

The Dissonance Theory fails as a complete explanation of consumer satisfaction,

however, it contributes to the understanding of the fact that expectations are not static in that

they may change during a consumption experience. For instance, the importance attached to

pre-holiday expectations may change during the holiday and a new set of expectations may be

formed as a result of experiences during the holiday. This implies that as customers progress

from one encounter to the next, say from hotel's reception to the room or the restaurant, their

expectations about the room may be modified due to the performance of the previous

encounter (Danaher & Arweiler, 1996).


The Contrast Theory

The Contrast Theory suggests the opposite of the Dissonance Theory. According to

this theory, when actual product performance falls short of consumer’s expectations about the

product, the contrast between the expectation and outcome will cause the consumer to

exaggerate the disparity (Yi, 1990). The Contrast theory maintains that a customer who

receives a product less valuable than expected, will magnify the difference between the

product received and the product expected (Cardozzo, 1965). This theory predicts that product

performance below expectations will be rated poorer than it is in reality (Oliver & DeSarbo,

1988). In other words, the Contrast Theory would assume that "outcomes deviating from

expectations will cause the subject to favorably or unfavorably react to the disconfirmation

experience in that a negative disconfirmation is believed to result in a poor product evaluation,

whereas positive disconfirmation should cause the product to be highly appraised" (Oliver,

1977, p. 81). In terms of the above restaurant situation, the consumer might say that the

restaurant was one of the worst he or she had ever been and the food was unfit for human

consumption, etc.

If the Contrast Theory were applied to a consumption context, then the poor

performance would be worse than simply poor, and good performance would be better than a

rating of good would suggest (Oliver, 1997). Under the dissonance theory, the opposite effects

occur, perceived performance, whether it is less or more favorable than the consumer's

expectations, is drawn to the original expectation level. It is important to note that these

theories have been applied and tested in laboratory settings where the customer satisfaction

was tightly controlled, situation specific and individually focused. For instance, researchers

investigated the ability of these theories in predicting customer satisfaction with a pen

(Cardozzo, 1965), a reel-type tape recorder (Olshavsky & Miller, 1972), ball-point pen

(Anderson, 1973), and a coffee brand (Olson & Dover, 1975). Thus, it is curious whether

hypotheses held by these theories could be accepted or rejected when applied in a field survey

research study of hospitality and tourism services (Oh & Parks, 1997). It is, for instance, not

clear whether all purchase decisions in tourism and hospitality services result in dissonance.


The Expectancy Disconfirmation Paradigm

Drawing on the shortcomings of the above early theories of consumer satisfaction,

Oliver (1977; 1980) proposed the Expectancy-Disconfirmation Paradigm (EDP) as the

most promising theoretical framework for the assessment of customer satisfaction. The model

implies that consumers purchase goods and services with pre-purchase expectations about the

anticipated performance. The expectation level then becomes a standard against which the

product is judged. That is, once the product or service has been used, outcomes are compared

against expectations. If the outcome matches the expectation confirmation occurs.

Disconfirmation occurs where there is a difference between expectations and outcomes. A

customer is either satisfied or dissatisfied as a result of positive or negative difference

between expectations and perceptions. Thus, when service performance is better than what

the customer had initially expected, there is a positive disconfirmation between expectations

and performance which results in satisfaction, while when service performance is as

expected, there is a confirmation between expectations and perceptions which results in

satisfaction. In contrast, when service performance is not as good as what the customer

expected, there is a negative disconfirmation between expectations and perceptions which

causes dissatisfaction.

This type of discrepancy theory has a long history in the satisfaction literature

dating back at least to Howard’s & Sheth’s (1967) definition of satisfaction which states that

it is a function of the degree of congruency between aspirations and perceived reality of

experiences. Porter (1961) can be credited with early empirical applications of this

comparative model of customer satisfaction in the field of job satisfaction (cf. Oliver, 1997).

In his study, Porter, for instance, compared the worker’s perception of how much of a job

facet (for example, pay) there should be to the worker’s perception of how much is the facet

there now. In support of Porter’s view, Locke (1965) proposed that this discrepancy

methodology could be employed in assessing employees’ job satisfaction

This literature review demonstrates that in addition to job satisfaction literature this

model has found great degree of support from researchers in other disciplines, and has been

widely used to evaluate satisfaction with different products and services, for example with flu

treatment (Oliver, 1980), with restaurant services (Bearden & Teel, 1983; Cadotte, Woodruff

& Jenkins, 1987; Swan & Trawick, 1981), with automobiles (Oliver & Swan, 1989;), with


record players (Tse & Wilton, 1989) with stock market services (Oliver & DeSarbo, 1988),

with video disc player (Churchill & Surprenant, 1982) with hotel and holiday destination

services (Barsky, 1992; Barsky & Labagh, 1992; Pizam & Milman, 1993; Tribe & Snaith,

1998; Weber, 1997).

Inferred versus Direct Disconfirmation

It is important to note that there are basically two methods of investigating

dis/confirmation of expectations. First, the inferred approach (or the subtractive approach)

and second the direct approach (or the subjective approach) (Meyer & Westerbarkey, 1996;

Prakash & Lounsbury, 1992). The inferred approach involves the computation of the

discrepancy between expectations and evaluations of performance. This requires researchers

to draw separate information relating to customer service expectations and perceived

performance. These scores are then subtracted to form the third variable, the dis/confirmation

or difference score. The inferred (subtractive) disconfirmation approach (for example,

LaTour & Peat, 1979), is derived from the theory of comparison (Thibaut & Kelley, 1959)

and assumes that the effects of a post-experience comparison on satisfaction can be expressed

as a function of algebraic difference between product performance and a comparative

standard. Tse and Wilton (1988) report that the inferred approach has found considerable

support from studies in cognitive psychology where psychological variables expressed as

algebraic rules have been found to represent human information processes over a wide

variety of situations.

The direct approach on the other hand, requires the use of summary judgmental

scales to measure dis/confirmation, such as better than expected to worse than expected. The

calculation of the difference scores by the researcher is avoided as the respondents can be

asked directly the extent to which the service experience exceeded, met or fell short of

expectations. As an alternative approach, subjective disconfirmation approach represents a

distinct psychological construct encompassing a subjective evaluation of the difference

between product performance and the comparison standard (Churchill & Surprenant, 1982;

Oliver, 1980). That is, subjective disconfirmation encompasses a set of psychological

processes that may mediate perceived product performance discrepancies. Tse & Wilton

(1988) state that such processes are likely to be important in situations in which product

performance cannot be judged discretely.


An important distinction between the direct and inferred approaches has been

drawn by Oliver (1980) who suggests that "subtractive disconfirmation (inferred) may lead to

an immediate satisfaction judgment, whereas subjective disconfirmation represents an

intervening distinct cognitive state resulting from the comparison process and preceding

satisfaction judgments" (p. 460). Hence, according to Oliver, subjective disconfirmation is

likely to offer a richer explanation of the complex processes underlying customer

satisfaction/dissatisfaction formation. Swan & Martin (1981) compared the ability of inferred

and direct disconfirmation measures in predicting customer satisfaction. They found that

satisfaction is more sensitive (better predicts) to inferred disconfirmation than to direct

disconfirmation, which appears to be contradicting with Tse’s & Wilton’s (1988) finding,

which suggests that direct disconfirmation yields a better prediction of customer satisfaction

than inferred disconfirmation.

Both the inferred and the direct methods of EDP have been used by hospitality and

tourism researchers in various studies which assess international travelers’ satisfaction levels

as well as in studies investigating customer satisfaction with hotel services (for example,

Barsky, 1992; Barsky & Labagh, 1992; Cho, 1998; Chon & Olsen, 1991; Danaher &

Haddrell, 1996; Pizam & Milman, 1993; Reisinger & Turner, 1997; Reisinger & Warzyack,

1995; Weber, 1997; Whipple & Thach, 1989). It is important to remind that, the Servqual

technique, utilized by some researchers in assessing tourist satisfaction (Tribe & Snaith,

1998), employs a similar algorithm to that of the inferred disconfirmation approach.

Despite its widespread popularity, however, the EDP is not free of shortcomings.

The main criticisms of this approach focus on the use of expectations as a comparison

standard in measuring customer satisfaction, the dynamic nature of expectations and the

timing of its measurement, the meaning of expectations to respondents, the use of difference

scores in assessing satisfaction, and the reliability and validity of the EDP in predicting

customer satisfaction (refer to Yuksel & Yuksel, 2001 for a detailed discussion on EDP

limitations). One of the problems related to the EDP is the suggested sequence of the model,

which presupposes that everyone has precise expectations prior to the service experience. It is

obvious that without these prior expectations, dis/confirmation of expectations cannot occur

(Halstead, Hartman, & Schmidt, 1994). However, the logic of the EDP, stating that everyone

has firm expectations of all attributes prior to service experiences, might be less meaningful

in situations where customers do not know what to expect, until they experience the service.


Unlike tangible goods where search attributes are dominant, tourism and hospitality services

are experiential in nature, and they contain high percentages of experience and credence

properties (Reisinger & Waryszak, 1996). Search properties refer to those attributes, which a

consumer evaluates before engaging in the service. These properties are primarily tangibles,

which are physical representations of the service (for example, facilities, equipment, and

appearance of personnel). Experience properties are those attributes that can be only assessed

after purchase or during consumption such as taste, value, and purchase satisfaction

(Zeithaml, 1981). Credence properties are the attributes that the consumer finds impossible to

evaluate even after purchase and consumption (for example, the backstage hygiene

conditions). In general, those services that are based heavily on experience and credence

properties, such as hospitality and tourism services, may be difficult to predict and evaluate

(Hill, 1985). Moreover, the variability in the service level that is provided from encounter to

encounter in hospitality and tourism services may create uncertainty, which may inhibit the

formation of precise pre-purchase expectations (Jayanti & Jackson, 1991). Thus, the

assumption that the formation of firm and realistic attribute-specific expectations prior to

every purchase in the hospitality and tourism context may be incorrect.

Customers with little or no brand experience of products and services constitute a

special case in the EDP, as it is not clear how the EDP may be applied to the evaluation of

services for which the consumer has little information or experience to generate a meaningful

expectation (Halstead et al., 1994; McGill & Iacobucci, 1992). Customer expectations of

completely unfamiliar experiences (for example, first time travel to Eastern Europe) are

almost meaningless (Halstead et al., 1994). "Though one might assume that expectations

based on travel to other parts of Europe would be an appropriate proximate, this too, may

have little relevance to the actual experience" (Halstead et al., 1994). Lack of any kind of

previous experience with the service, or not knowing what to expect as a result of the absence

of pre-purchase information, may result in tentative and uncertain expectations (Crompton &

Love, 1995; Mazursky, 1989; McGill & Iacobucci, 1992). In these situations, regarding

expectations as firm criteria against which make evaluative judgments is likely to be

fallacious (Crompton & Love, 1995).

Learning from previous service experiences may result in more accurate and stable

expectations (Day, 1977). Experienced customers may, therefore, make better choices when

repurchasing, they may have more realistic expectations, and they may be more satisfied with


their choices (Fisk & Coney, 1982; Halstead et al., 1994; Westbrook & Newman, 1987). On

the other hand, inexperienced customers may rely on external sources of information

(Halstead et al., 1994), such as the organization’s promotional material, and word of mouth

communication shape their expectations, leading to expectations that are weaker, less

complete, less stable, and superficial (Halstead et al., 1994; Mazursky, 1989; McGill &

Iacobucci, 1992). Thus, measuring expectations may not be valid in situations where

consumers do not have well formed expectations prior to service experience (Carman, 1990).

In such situations, as Carman notes, expectations may be assumed to be zero, and that

expectation measures do not need to be obtained every time the perception measures are

obtained.

Another problem with the EDP is that post-purchase evaluations may not be based

on initial expectations. For instance, McGill & Iacobucci (1992, p. 571) report that "in

contrast to what might have been expected from the literature on the disconfirmation

paradigm, that comparison of subjects' listing of features that affected their level of

satisfaction in the post-experience questionnaire were not entirely consistent with the listing

of factors that they expected to affect their level of satisfaction in the pre-experience

questionnaire". Similarly, Whipple & Thach (1989, p.16) state that expectations may be

important indicators of choice preference and "there is evidence that pre-purchase choice

criteria and post-purchase choice criteria are not the same". If different evaluative criteria are

used before and after a service experience then "the initial expectation framework is

disregarded and is of little value for measuring satisfaction".

Another problem with the EDP relates to the meaning of expectations question to

the respondent (i.e., whether the expectation question signifies the same meaning to

everyone). Expectation represents a baseline, against which performance is compared, and it

may vary from a minimum tolerable level of performance and estimates of anticipated

performance, to some concept of ideal or perfect service (Ennew, Reed, & Binks, 1993).

Given the confusion about the precise meaning of expectation, the use of this concept as a

means to conceptualise comparison standards, has been criticized by a number of researchers

(Woodruff et al., 1991). The expectation component of both service quality and satisfaction

investigations might have serious discriminant validity shortcomings, which causes the

performance-minus expectation measurement framework to be a potentially misleading

indicator of customer perceptions of services. For instance, findings reported in Teas’ (1993)


study clearly suggest that not all respondents interpret the question of expectation in the same

way, and there may be a considerable degree of confusion, among respondents, concerning

the actual question being asked. Teas (1993) identified that some responses suggested that the

expectation questions involved an importance measure, while other respondents used the

scale to predict the performance they would expect (i.e. forecasted performance). A few

respondents interpreted the question in terms of the ideal point concept (i.e., the optimal

performance, what performance can be), and minimum tolerable concept (i.e., what

performance must be).

If there is a difference between customers’ interpretations of the expectation

question, then the scores obtained from performance-minus-expectation process can be

misleading. Assume that two respondents rated different scores on expectation question

concerning a visually appealing restaurant (1 & 7 respectively) and rated the same score of 7

on perceived performance. As a result of the low score on expectation, the calculation

suggests a positive gap (+6) in the first case, whereas the latter’s ratings suggest a gap score

of zero, which consequently implies that the satisfaction is higher in the first case. However,

what if the respondent rated low on the expectation question because she wishes to save

money and desires a visually unappealing restaurant, or the visual appealing issue is

unimportant to the respondent. The last probability, in particular, represents a potential

measurement validity problem. Although the first respondent rated 1 on the expectation scale

because the visually appealing issue is an unimportant factor, the resultant P-E (+6) score

suggests that a higher level of quality/satisfaction in that situation than the quality/satisfaction

level suggested in the second respondent’s case, in which the performance is high on an

important attribute. Thus, it is illogical to assume that "scores with high performance on

attributes of low importance items should reflect a higher service quality [satisfaction] than

equally strong performance on attributes of high importance" (Teas, 1994, p. 44).

An additional problem related to the EDP is its main presumption. The current logic

of the EDP predicts customers will evaluate a service favorably, as long as their expectations

are met or exceeded (Iacobucci, Grayson, & Ostrom, 1994). However, this may not be the

case every time. In situations where consumers are forced to buy an inferior, less desirable

brand because their preferred brand is not available, then consumers may not necessarily

experience disconfirmation of a pre-experience comparison standard (LaTour & Peat, 1979).

"If a less desirable brand was indeed as undesirable as the customer had expected it to be, the


consumer would experience no disconfirmation, and yet could be quite dissatisfied"

(Iacobucci et al., 1994, p. 16). In addition, users of new brands who experience unfavorable

disconfirmation of a high pre-experience standard, which was generated through advertising,

may still be satisfied with the brand, if it has more of the desired attributes than competing

brands (LaTour & Peat, 1979).

The key role played by expectations in determining the level of satisfaction, is

questionable. Consumers may show satisfaction or dissatisfaction for aspects where

expectations never existed (McGill & Iacobucci, 1992; Yi, 1990). In her research on tourist

satisfaction, Hughes (1991, p. 168) reported that "surprisingly, even though experiences did

not fulfill expectations, a considerable number of tourists were relatively satisfied". Similarly,

Pearce (1991) maintains that tourists may be satisfied even though their experiences did not

fulfill their expectations. In a study of service quality perceptions of clinic customers, Smith

(1995) reports a similar finding, that respondents described themselves as extremely pleased

with the clinic even where an aggregate performance-minus-expectation score was negative

(P<E). Similarly, Yuksel & Rimmington (1998) found that customers might be reasonably

satisfied even if the service performance does not totally meet their initial expectations. These

findings cast doubts over the logical consistency of the expectancy-dis/confirmation model,

as it predicts the customer to be dissatisfied when initial expectations are not met.

One possible explanation for this could be that some consumers may use minimum

acceptable as a comparative standard in certain situations, and the performance above the

minimum acceptable but below the predicted expectations may not necessarily create

dissatisfaction. The latitude-of-acceptance (Anderson, 1973) or zone-of-indifference

(Woodruff et al., 1983) concept might explain why those customers, whose expectations are

unmet, report satisfaction. This concept suggests that purchasers are willing to accept a range

of performance around a point estimate as long as the range could be reasonably expected

(Oliver, 1997). If customer tolerance of some deviation from expectations exists, a level of

service less than the expected does not generate dissatisfaction (Saleh & Ryan, 1991).

Perceived performance within the zone of indifference probably does not cause much

attention to be directed toward the evaluation process. In contrast, perceived performance,

outside the zone of indifference is unusual and attention getting, leading to an emotional

response (Woodruff et al., 1983). An alternative explanation could be that, customers might

engage in a trade-off process, where strength of an attribute may compensate for the


weakness(es) of another attribute, and may lead to overall satisfaction (Lewis, Chambers &

Chacko, 1995).

There is a continuing debate on the timing of expectation measurement in customer

satisfaction studies. Some researchers suggest that expectations should be solicited before the

service experience (Carman, 1990), whereas others argue that expectations may be measured

after the service experience (Parasuraman et al., 1988). Those supporting the measurement

"before the experience" contend that, "to be of value expectations should be elicited prior to

the service being provided, otherwise the risk is so great that expectations will be

contaminated by perceptions of the actual service provided" (Getty & Thomson, 1994, p. 8).

This method has been employed by a number of researchers in tourism and hospitality

literature (for example, Fick & Ritchie, 1991; Johns & Tyas, 1996; Hughes, 1991; Pizam &

Milman, 1993; Tribe & Snaith, 1998; Weber, 1997; Whipple & Thach, 1989). For instance,

in their investigation of satisfaction among first time visitors to Spain, Pizam & Milman

(1993) solicited travelers' expectations before they left and examined their perception of 21

destination attributes after they returned from their holiday. Weber (1997) adopted a similar

approach in her research on satisfaction of the German travel market in Australia. Weber

distributed questionnaires to tourists on their arrival and asked them to complete the pre-trip

section on the day of arrival and the post-trip section at the end of their holiday.

Although adopted by a number of researchers, measuring expectations prior to

service experience is problematic. It is reasonable to assume that, in some situations where

the pre-post method is adopted, not all of the respondents answer to the expectation part of

the questionnaire at the required time (for example, before the service experience). A number

of respondents may wait to complete the expectation part after the dinner, which may

produce "hindsight bias" (Weber, 1997; Yuksel & Rimmington, 1998). Prior expectations

may be modified during the service encounter, and these modified expectations, may be used

in the comparison process (Danaher & Mattsson, 1994; Gronroos, 1993; Iacobucci et al.,

1994; McGill & Iacobucci, 1992). An observed effect (satisfaction) may be due to an event,

which takes place between the pre-test and the post-test (Cook & Campbell, 1979).

According to Boulding, Karla, Staelin, & Zeithaml (1993, p. 9) "A person’s expectations just

before a service contact can differ from the expectations held just after the service contact

because of the information that enters the system between service encounters". The

unpredictability of tourism events lies at the heart of vacational experience (Botterill, 1987),


and events that are completely unanticipated prior to a trip may become significant

contributors to overall holiday satisfaction (e.g., unanticipated sources or discoveries such as

the weather, the travel companion and unexpected adventures) (Pearce, 1980; Weber, 1997).

If learning takes place during the service encounter, and expectations are modified

as a consequence of this, then the use of initially measured expectations in satisfaction

assessment is not logical. Satisfaction is most accurately measured at the conclusion of the

transaction, and thus, the expectation referent, relevant to satisfaction, would be the one

actually used by the consumer in satisfaction formation, not necessarily the one measured

before consumption (Oliver, 1997). This becomes problematic if the consumer has updated

(downgraded or elevated) his or her expectations during consumption. Recent studies (e.g.,

Zwick, Pieters, & Baumgartner, 1995) suggest that updated expectations may be more

influential in satisfaction judgments than pre-consumption expectations. Given the evidence

above, it seems reasonable to assume that a customer’s expectations, prior to the service

experience, may be different from those against which they compare the actual experience.

Given the complications that surround the measurement of expectations prior to the

service experience, an alternative method of soliciting expectations is that they are measured

after the service experience or simultaneously with the service experience. A number of

researchers have used this method (Dorfman, 1979; Fick & Ritchie, 1991; Parasuraman et al.,

1988). For example, Parasuraman et al (1988) & Dorfman (1979) asked respondents to

complete both expectations and perceptions questions at the same time. Based on their

previous experience with the service, respondents were asked what they expected and then

were asked what they had experienced. However, this approach is also questionable, as

expectations might be over/under stated if the tourists have a very negative or positive

experience (Yuksel & Rimmington, 1998). In addition, respondents’ capability to correctly

remember prior expectations raises doubts about the validity of these measures (Lounsbury &

Hoopes, 1985). It is argued that, if expectations are measured after the service experience or

simultaneously with the experience, it is not the expectations that are being measured but

something that has been biased by the experience. For example, Halstead (1993) found that

expectations that are measured after service experience, were higher for dissatisfied

customers than for satisfied customers. This suggests that recalled expectations will be biased

toward the experienced performance (Oliver, 1997).


From a practical perspective, Dorfman (1979) draws attention to the fact that

expectations are generally rated very highly. That is, respondents may feel motivated to

demonstrate an "I-have-high-expectation" social norm, and the expected level therefore may

exceed the existing level for no other reason than this type of response bias (Babakus &

Boller, 1992). In the service quality area, for example, Babakus & Boller (1992, p. 257)

pointed out that " in general when people are asked to indicate an expected level and an

existing level of service they seldom rate the expected level lower than the existing level". If

these scores are almost constant, "then there is little point in including them in an instrument,

since they will not give responses significantly different from using the perception scores

alone" (Crompton & Love, 1995, p. 15).

The results of Fick & Ritchie’s (1991), Parasuraman et al.’s (1988; 1991; 1994),

Smith (1995) and Tribe and Snaith’s (1998) research reveals that, scores on expectations are

indeed rated consistently higher than the scores on the performance component. For instance,

Smith (1995) reports that the mean score for the expectation scale in her study was 6. 401

(standard deviation 0.347). In Parasuraman et al’s (1991) study the mean expectation score

was 6.22. Buttle (1995), in a comprehensive review of research studies on service quality and

satisfaction reported that, the average score of expectations was 6.086. The results of Bojanic

& Rosen’s (1995) study, in a family restaurant environment, demonstrated that consumers’

perceptions about the actual level of service provided, fell significantly short of their

expectations. Similarly, the research undertaken by Yuksel & Rimmington (1998) revealed

that the mean expectation scores for restaurant services was, significantly higher than the

mean performance perception scores. These findings suggest that it would be difficult to

satisfy tourists as expectations will never be met or exceeded.

In this sense, to ensure that expectations are exceeded, some researchers have

suggested that service providers should understate the destination or organization’s capability

of delivering these experiences, in promotional efforts. For example, Pizam & Milman (1993,

p. 208) suggested that "it would be more beneficial to create modest and even below realistic

expectations". Though this is a sensible and potentially effective suggestion in theory, it is

questionable whether it can and, should be, implemented practically (Weber, 1997). The

problem is that tourists may not want to spend time and money in a destination in the first

place if promotional efforts convey the possibility of the destination being unable to deliver

adequate services. Moreover, establishing a threshold is difficult at which expectations are


raised high enough to attract customers, but low enough to allow for expectations to be

exceeded (Weber, 1997). The present logic of the EDP encourages managers to lower

expectations for a given service and then having the users discover a superior outcome, than

expected, leading to greater satisfaction. Obviously, low expectations would affect the

motivation and would therefore reduce purchase and consumption (Williams, 1998).

Additionally, expectations are argued to have a direct positive effect on satisfaction

because "without observing the performance, expectations may have already predisposed the

consumer to respond to the product in a certain way (the higher the expectations, the higher

the satisfaction or vice versa)" (Oliver, 1997, p. 89). If high expectations lead to more

favorable ratings, then one may suggest that companies should strive to raise expectations

substantially above the product performance in order to obtain a higher product evaluation

(Yi, 1990). However, the validity of this suggestion is also questionable. Raising expectations

substantially above the product performance and failing to meet these expectations may

backfire, as small discrepancies may be largely discounted while large discrepancies may

result in a very negative evaluation. Given these complications, it appears that increasing

service performance may be the safest strategy.

The Comparison Level Theory

A number of authors criticized the Expectancy-Disconfirmation paradigm on the

grounds that this approach posits that the primary determinant of customer satisfaction is the

predictive expectations created by manufacturers, company reports, or unspecified sources

(Yi, 1990). For instance, La Tour & Peat (1979) argued that the EDP ignores other sources of

expectations, such as the consumer's past experience and other consumer's experience with

similar constructs. They proposed a modification of the Comparison Level Theory (Thibaut &

Kelley, 1959). In contrast to the Expectancy-Disconfirmation paradigm which uses predictive

or situationally-produced expectations as the comparison standard, the Comparison Level

Theory argues that there are more than one basic determinants of comparison level for a

product: (1) consumers' prior experiences with similar products, (2) situationally produced

expectations (those created through advertising and promotional efforts), and (3) the

experience of other consumers who serve as referent persons.


Applying the Comparison Level Theory to the confirmation/disconfirmation process,

LaTour & Peat found that experience based standards or norms play a role as a baseline for

comparisons in consumer's satisfaction judgments. They found that situationally induced

expectations had little effect on the customer satisfaction, while expectations based on prior

experiences were the major determinant of customer satisfaction. This finding suggests that

consumers may give less weight to manufacturer-provided information, when they have

personal experience and relevant information about other consumer experiences (Yi, 1990).

Unlike the Expectancy/ Disconfirmation paradigm, the Comparison Level Theory suggests

that consumers might bring a number of different comparison standards into the consumption

experience. Consumers might be more likely to use predictive expectations based on external

communication (advertisement) before the purchase (in their decision-making), while

different standards (for example, past experience and experiences of other consumers

suggested by LaTour and Peat’s model) might become more likely after the purchase. There

is, however, inadequate information concerning what standards that consumers bring into the

consumption experience are being confirmed and disconfirmed. Theoretical discussions aside,

the use of past experience suggested by the Comparison Level Theory as the comparison

standard in customer satisfaction investigations may serve managers to compare their

performance with their rivals, and undertake required actions to catch-up or for product

differentiation.

The Value Percept Theory

Similar to LaTour and Peat's argument, Westbrook and Reilly (1983) argue that the

Expectancy-Disconfirmation paradigm may not be the most appropriate model to explain

customer satisfaction, as customer satisfaction/dissatisfaction is more likely to be determined

by comparative standards other than expectations. They proposed a Value-Percept Disparity

theory, originally formulated by Locke (1967), as an alternative to the Expectation-

Disconfirmation paradigm. Criticizing the predictive expectations used as a comparison

standard in the traditional Disconfirmation paradigm, Westbrook and Reilly argue that what

is expected from a product may or may not correspond to what is desired or valued in a

product. Conversely, that which is valued may or may not correspond to what is expected.

Thus, values have been proposed to be a better comparative standard as opposed to

expectations in explaining customer satisfaction/dissatisfaction. According to the value-

percept theory, satisfaction is an emotional response that is triggered by a cognitive


evaluative process in which the perceptions of an offer are compared to one's values, needs,

wants or desires (Westbrook & Reilly, 1983). Similar to the Expectancy/Disconfirmation

paradigm, a growing disparity between one’s perceptions and one's values (value-perception)

indicates an increasing level of dissatisfaction.

In their study, Westbrook and Reilly compared the expectation-confirmation model

with the value-percept disparity model. The value-disparity was defined as the extent to which

the product provides the features and performance characteristics needed or desired. The

disparity was assessed on a single differential scale anchored with "provides far less than my

needs" and "provides exactly what I need". In contrast to their hypothesis, which states that

values, as opposed to expectations, determine satisfaction, Westbrook and Reilly found that

the disconfirmation of expectations had a stronger effect on satisfaction than the disparity

between value and perceptions. They suggested that both constructs (expectations and values)

were needed in explaining customer satisfaction, as they found neither the expectation-

disconfirmation model nor the value percept model was sufficient on its own. Similarly,

results of recent studies investigating the ability of value and expectations in determining

satisfaction demonstrate that it might be better to integrate desires and expectations into a

single framework, as they are both affecting consumer satisfaction (Spreng et al 1996). The

Value-Percept theory which postulates satisfaction as the fulfillment of consumer desires,

values, or wants, as opposed to their expectations, has not received as much support from

researchers as the EDP did in ascertaining customer satisfaction with hospitality and tourism

services.

The Importance- Performance Model

Although the EDP has dominated as the theoretical construct with which to measure

satisfaction and that predictive expectations are regarded as the comparison standard that best

explains satisfaction, the impact of attribute importance is also recognized (Barsky, 1992;

Martilla and James, 1977; Oh & Parks, 1997). Satisfaction is seen as a function of customer

perceptions of performance and the importance of that attribute. Based on the expectancy-

value model, developed by Fishbein and Ajzen (1975), in which attribute importance and

beliefs play a central role, Barsky (1992) posited that overall satisfaction/dissatisfaction

toward a product/service are dictated by the importance of specific characteristics and the

degree to which that product provides the specific characteristics. This model predicts that


people generally have a belief about an attribute, but each attribute may be assigned

important weighting relative to other attributes (ibid.). This implies that customers’

satisfaction levels are related to the strength of their beliefs regarding attribute importance

multiplied by how well these attributes meet their expectations (Barsky, 1992) (a modified

version of EDP to measure customer satisfaction).

Researchers in marketing have used importance either as a replacement variable for

consumer expectations (Martilla & James, 1977) or as a weighting parameter for another

variable being studied in the same decision context (Barksy, 1992; Barsky and Labagh, 1992;

Carman, 1990; Cronin & Taylor, 1992; Kivela, 1998; Teas, 1993). One of the fundamental

reasons for favoring attribute importance over the expectations is that customers expect

uniformly high levels of service (Brown, Churchill & Peter, 1993) and customer expectations

can be manipulated externally (Davidow & Uttal, 1989), whereas the importance attached to

product /service attributes are based on deep-seated cultural norms and personal values

(Barsky, 1992).

The original Importance-Performance analysis, proposed by Martilla and James

(1977), maintains that satisfaction is a function of customer perceptions of performance and

the importance of the attribute. Valuable information can be gained from this method

(Hemmasi et al 1995). The importance and performance items can be mapped through an

importance performance analysis. It does not involve subtraction or any other type of

computation. The importance performance model has been found to be conceptually valid

and a powerful technique for identifying service areas requiring remedial strategic actions

(Hemmasi et al 1995). The importance performance analysis seems to provide a clear

direction for action, as it is able to identify areas where limited sources should be focused.

Consequently, practitioners lacking sophisticated computer knowledge can use importance

performance mapping. Until recently, the performance importance grid analysis was

considered to be an affective management tool but it lost favor where more quantitative

methods became practical with computerization (Duke & Persia, 1995). Recently,

multiplication of the importance score on an attribute with the evaluative score given to the

same attribute in order to create a new weighted variable has gained a substantial popularity.

Weighted Importance-Performance technique has been employed to assess customer

satisfaction in a number of tourism and hospitality studies (Barksy, 1992; Barsky & Labagh,


1992; Kivela, 1998). Researchers of this tact assert that the weighting of attribute performance

by importance is a powerful technique in determining customer satisfaction, however, they do

not supply any empirical evidence that shows that the importance-weighted variable performs

better than the original variable, which is not weighted or not multiplied with its

corresponding importance. Therefore, whether the weighting attribute importance contributes

to the model's diagnostic power needs to be investigated thoroughly.

The Attribution Theory

Research of the Attribution Theory is primarily developed from the Weiner, Frieze

and Kukla’s (1971) work. It is important to note that the Attribution theory has been mostly

used in dissatisfaction/ complaining behavior models than in satisfaction models per se.

According to this model, consumers are regarded as rational processors of information who

seek out reasons to explain why a purchase outcome, for example dissatisfaction, has

occurred (Folkes, 1984). This model argues that when the delivery of a service does not

match customers’ prior expectations or other standards, customers engage in an attributional

process in order to make sense of what has occurred (Bitner, 1990). More specifically, this

model assumes that consumers tend to look for causes for product successes or failures and

usually attribute these successes or failures using a three dimensional schema (Folkes, 1989;

Oliver & DeSarbo, 1988; Pearce & Moscardo, 1984; Weiner et al 1971):

Locus of Causality (internal or external): This means that the purchase outcome, for

example, is cause of dissatisfaction and can be attributed either to the consumer

(internal) or to the marketer or something in the environment or situation (external).

Stability (stable/ permanent or unstable/ temporary): Stable causes are thought not to

vary over time, while unstable causes are thought to fluctuate and vary over time.

Controllability (volitional/ controllable or non volitional/uncontrollable): Both

consumers and firms can either have volitional control over an outcome or be under

certain controllable constraints.

It is argued that under some conditions, for example, when a number of consumers

find themselves in agreement about the cause of their dissatisfaction, when the same


establishment repeats their mistake over and over again (consistency), and when only this

establishment commits error (distinctiveness of the behavior is high), external attribution

process takes place. On the other hand, when the agreement is low, consistency is low and

distinctiveness is low, consumers are assumed to relate their negative reactions

(dissatisfaction) to themselves (i.e., just having an "off" day) (Pearce & Moscardo, 1984).

In his study, Folkes (1984) asked subjects to remember the last time they went to a

restaurant, ordered something and did not like it. The subjects were further asked who had to

be responsible for this (locus), whether this type of incident happens at this restaurant

(stability), and whether the restaurant could prevent the problem (control). The subjects were

then asked whether they would prefer a refund, exchange, or an apology. Folkes found that

the subjects who felt that the problem was restaurant related (external) stated that they

deserved a refund, exchange, or an apology. Subjects who felt the cause as stable were more

likely to prefer a refund rather than an exchange, while subjects who thought that the

company could have prevented the problem demonstrated high levels of anger, and showed

their behavioral intentions to hurt the restaurant’s business. Such feelings of anger toward the

company were heightened when the responsiveness of the firm to the problem was

considered less than adequate and hence resulted in negative word-of-mouth

recommendations. In addition, under conditions where the consumer perceived the company

to be non-responsive, they were less likely to complain to the company and more likely to use

negative word-of-mouth recommendations to express their dissatisfaction. Similarly

company-related (external) attributions elicited greater feelings of anger and desire to hurt the

company than internal attributions (Folkes, 1984; Richins, 1985).

In the past, attribution models have been more useful in predicting consumers’

reactions when they are dissatisfied than in explaining the satisfaction process itself (Huang

and Smith, 1996). However Folkes (1984) and Richins (1985) have obtained some evidence

that supports a relationship between locus of causality (internal and external attributions) and

satisfaction judgments. The results, especially those of Folkes’, demonstrate that the locus of

causality dominates satisfaction judgments and satisfaction is associated more with internal

than with external factors. Oliver and Desarbo (1988) who compared the effects of five

determinants of satisfaction (expectancy, performance, disconfirmation, equity and

attribution) have reported similar findings that the attribution dimension was the least

significant of all effects in the situation tested.


Some researchers suggest the Attribution theory as an alternative model to explain

customer satisfaction, however, it seems rather like an extension of the Expectancy-

Disconfirmation paradigm because the attribution process is triggered off primarily by the

negative disconfirmation of expectations. The attribution theory further appears to be more

useful to apply in ascertaining customer dissatisfaction and complaining behavior.

The Equity Theory

According to the Equity Theory, satisfaction exists when consumers perceive their

output/input ratio as being fair (Swan & Oliver, 1989). Equity models are derived from the

Equity Theory (Adams, 1963), and are based on the notion of input-output ratio, which plays

a key role in satisfaction (Oliver & Swan, 1989). According to this theory, parties to an

exchange will feel equitably treated (thus, satisfied), if in their minds, the ratio of their

outcomes to inputs is fair (Oliver & DeSarbo, 1988). Whether a person feels equitably treated

or not may depend on various factors including the price paid, the benefits received, the time

and effort expended during the transaction and the experience of previous transactions

(Woodruff et al 1983). This implies that comparative baseline may take many different forms.

This theory shares similarities with the Comparison Level Theory which posits that bases of

comparison used by consumers in satisfaction judgments may be more than just expectations.

Equity models of consumer satisfaction appear to be different from the other models,

in that satisfaction is evaluated relative to other parties (people) in an exchange and the

outcomes of all parties sharing the same experience are taken into consideration. Erevvels and

Leavitt (1992) argue that equity models can provide a much richer picture of consumer

satisfaction in situations that may not be captured using traditional satisfaction models. For

example, they may be especially useful in modeling situations where satisfaction with the

other party is considered to be an important element of the transaction.

Translated into a tourism context, the Equity theory suggests that tourists compare

perceived input-output (gains) in a social exchange: if the tourist’s gain is less than their input

(time, money, and other costs), dissatisfaction results (Reisinger & Turner, 1997). Satisfaction

is therefore, "a mental state of being adequately or inadequately rewarded" (Moutinho, 1987,

p. 34). The comparison may take other forms. The output/input ratio for a service experience

may be compared to the perceived net gain of some others (such as friends) who have


experienced a similar offer (Meyer & Westerbarkey, 1996). According to this theory,

satisfaction is seen as a relative judgment that takes into consideration both the qualities and

benefits obtained through a purchase as well as the costs and efforts borne by a consumer to

obtain that purchase. Fisk and Coney (1982), for instance, found that consumers were less

satisfied and had a less positive attitude toward a company when they heard that other

customers received a better price deal and better service than them. In other words, their

perceptions of equitable treatment by the company translated into satisfaction judgments and

even affected their future expectations and purchase intentions.

Equity theory applied to customer satisfaction/dissatisfaction has become accepted

as an alternative way to conceptualise how comparisons work (Oliver & Desarbo, 1988).

Equity disconfirmation has been supported empirically, though it applies primarily to social

interactions (Oliver & Swan, 1989). The equity theory as well as the attribution theory has

been proposed as satisfaction determinants, however "they have not generated the same level

of interest in customer satisfaction/dissatisfaction research (as the EDP did)" (Oliver, 1993, p.

419).

The Evaluative Congruity Theory

According to Sirgy’s (1984) Evaluative Congruity Model (or the Social Cognition

Model), satisfaction is a function of evaluative congruity, which is a cognitive matching

process in which a perception is compared to an evoked referent cognition in order to evaluate

a stimulus or action. The result of this cognitive process is assumed to produce either a

motivational or an emotional state. Customer satisfaction/ dissatisfaction is regarded as an

emotional state because it prompts the consumer to evaluate alternative course of action to

reduce an existing dissatisfaction state and /or obtain a future satisfaction state (Sirgy, 1984).

This model argues that there are three congruity states; negative incongruity,

congruity, and positive incongruity. Similar to the confirmation/disconfirmation concept,

negative incongruity is a cognitive state that results from a negative discrepancy between the

valence levels of a perception and an evoked referent cognition, which induces dissatisfaction.

Congruity is a cognitive state that leads to a non-significant or negligible discrepancy between

a perception and an evoked referent cognition, which results in a neutral evaluation state or a

satisfaction state. Finally, positive incongruity-state results from a positive discrepancy


between a perception and an evoked referent cognition, which generates satisfaction. Unlike

the EDP, Sirgy’s model views the customer satisfaction/dissatisfaction as a function of one or

more congruities between perceptual and evoked referent states and states that the occurrence

of multiple comparison processes could explain consumer satisfaction better. More

specifically, the original Evaluative Congruity Model assumes that satisfaction may be

determined by one or more cognitive congruities, such as between (1) new product

performance after usage and expected product performance before use, (2) new product

performance after use and old product performance before use, (3) expected product

performance after purchase and ideal product performance before purchase, (4) expected

product performance after purchase and deserved product performance after use. Such

discrepancies are argued to independently influence consumer’s overall satisfaction with a

given product (Sirgy, 1984).

One of the most important features of the Evaluative Congruity Theory seems to be

its ability in explaining the different states of satisfaction/dissatisfaction resulting from

different combinations of expectations and performance outcome (Chon, 1992; Chon,

Christianson & Cin-Lin, 1998). Recall that the traditional Expectancy-Disconfirmation

paradigm holds the view that the level of resulting satisfaction will be the same in both cases

where low expectations are met by low performance and high expectations are met by high

performance. According to the Evaluative Congruity Theory, however, different expectation-

performance combinations (high expectation/high performance; low expectation/low

performance) would result in different satisfaction states (Chon & Olsen, 1991; Chon, 1992;

Chon et al 1998; Sirgy, 1994).

For instance, Chon (1992) and Chon et al (1998), based on the Evaluative Congruity

Theory, postulated that under a positive incongruity condition, in which the tourist

expectation of a given service performance is negative but his/her perceived outcome is

positive, the tourist would be most satisfied. Indeed, their results revealed that when the

tourist’s expectation of a destination was negative but the perceptions were positive the tourist

was most satisfied, whereas when the tourist’s expectations were positive and perceptions

were positive, the level of satisfaction was moderate. In addition, when the tourist’s

expectations were negative and perceptions were negative, the satisfaction was lower than the

first two congruity conditions, and when the tourist expectations were positive but the

perceptions were negative, the tourist was least satisfied. These findings provides some degree


of support for the underlying assumption of the Evaluative Congruity Theory which suggests

that different states of satisfaction may result from different combinations of expectations and

performance perceptions.

In addition, Sirgy further postulated that product images should be classified as

being functional (i.e. physical benefits associated with the product) and symbolic (i.e., self

image) and argues that customer satisfaction/dissatisfaction is not only an evaluative function

of the consumer’s expectations and performance, but it is also an evaluative function of the

consumer’s self image and product image congruity. Chon and Olsen (1991) in their study on

tourist satisfaction with destinations found some evidence supporting the view that the

consumer decision making process involves the evaluation of not only the functional

attributes of a product (the availability of suitable accommodation) but also personality related

attributes. They found that functional congruity explained customer satisfaction better than

symbolic congruity.

It is important to note that although Evaluative Congruity model has been offered as

an alternative way to explain satisfaction process, its methodological mechanism is analogous

to that of the Expectancy-Disconfirmation paradigm (Oh & Parks, 1997). That is, both the

Evaluative Congruity and Expectation-Disconfirmation models are based on the

disconfirmation concept which presupposes that customers form expectations about the

product prior to purchase and compare these expectations against perceived performance after

the product is used. Both models, however, may not be suitable to apply in consumption

situations where customers do not have prior expectations such as with unfamiliar products.

The Person-Situation-Fit Concept

It has been also noted that tourist satisfaction can be explained by the Person-

Situation Fit concept (Pearce & Moscardo, 1984). This concept argues that people

deliberately seek situations, which they feel match their personalities and orientations. The

implication of this idea may become particularly appropriate to tourist settings where

individuals make a conscious choice to visit a specific tourist destination (Reisinger and

Turner, 1997). This principle states that the optimal fit between tourists and their environment

occurs when the attributes of their environment are congruent with their beliefs, attitudes, and

values as in the case of Value-Percept Disparity model. When the activities available in the


environment fit the activities sought and valued by the tourists the satisfaction occurs. Where

values and value orientations do not fit, mismatch can lead to feelings of stress, anxiety,

uncertainty and result in dissatisfaction (Pearce & Moscardo, 1984). As the degree of fit

increases, tourist satisfaction also increases. This concept has been applied generally in the

tourist motivation studies.

Summary

This chapter presents and discusses a number of frameworks developed to explain

customer satisfaction in the literature. The theories explicated in this chapter include the

Dissonance Theory, the Contrast Theory, the Expectancy-Disconfirmation Theory, the

Comparison Level Theory, the Value-Percept Theory, the Attribution Theory, The Equity

theory, the Person-Situation Fit concept, and the Importance-Performance model. There is

widespread consensus among these satisfaction theories that satisfaction is an evaluative

judgment, which results from a comparison of product performance to some forms of

evaluation standard. The majority of these theories, for example the Expectancy

Disconfirmation Paradigm, the Comparison Level Theory, and the Evaluative Congruity

Theory concur that product performance exceeding prior expectations or some form of

standards signifies satisfaction, whereas dissatisfaction is the outcome when product

performance falls short of that standard. Thus, the disparity concept between the actual

outcome and the expected constitutes the core of the majority of the satisfaction theories.

Early theories of the satisfaction concept assume that consumers may either

exaggerate (the Contrast Theory) or adjust (the Dissonance Theory) the perceived disparity

between the product performance and the initial expectations or the norm. As these early

theories have not been applied in tourism and hospitality settings, the validity of their

assumptions remains unclear. Based on the logic of the Dissonance Theory, some researchers

suggest that in order to have a higher product evaluation, companies should raise customer

expectations substantially above the product performance. This assumption is criticized on the

grounds that it does not take into account of the concept of tolerance levels. Drawing on these

two early satisfaction theories, Oliver developed the Expectancy-Disconfirmation paradigm

which postulates that if the outcome of a product is judged to be better than or equal to the

expected, the consumer will feel satisfied. If, on the other hand, actual outcome is judged not

to be better than expected, the consumer will be satisfied. The EDP has gained growing


support from researchers and it has become the most widely applied framework in studies

assessing customer satisfaction with tourism and hospitality services.

Last decades also saw the development of other models to explain customer

satisfaction. In contrast to EDP which assumes satisfaction resulting from disconfirmation of

predictive expectations, LaTour and Peat's (1979) Comparison Level Theory views

satisfaction as a function of comparison between product performance and consumers' past

experiences and experiences of other consumers. Westbrook and Riley (1983) introduced the

Value-Percept Theory which proposes that satisfaction is an emotional response that is

triggered by a cognitive evaluative process in which the perceptions of an offer are compared

to one's values, needs, wants or desires, in contrast to expectations suggested in Oliver's EDP

model. Sirgy's Evaluative Congruity Model views satisfaction as a function of evaluative

congruity, which is a cognitive matching process in which a perception is compared to an

evoked referent cognition for the purpose of evaluating a stimulus object/action. The

Importance-Performance model, borrowed from Fishbein and Ajzen's consumer behavior

model, and adapted to hospitality services by Barsky, assumes that consumer satisfaction is a

function of beliefs about an object's attributes (that is a product possesses a particular

attribute) and the strength of these belief (that is, the relative importance of each attribute to

the customer's overall satisfaction with the product or service). As stated earlier, majority of

these theories suggest that customer satisfaction is a relative concept and judged in relation to

a standard. While several comparison standards have been proposed in the literature, no

consensus exists concerning which standard might be the most appropriate (which standard

best predicts customer satisfaction) (Cote, Foxman & Cutler, 1989; Erevelles & Leavitt,

1992).

References

Adams, S. J. (1963) Toward and Understanding of Inequity, Journal of Abnormal and Social

Psychology, 67: 422-436

Babakus, E. and Boller, W. G. (1992) An Empirical Assessment of the Servqual Scale.

Journal of Business Research 24: 253-268

Boulding, W; Karla, A; Staelin, R; Zeithaml, V.A. (1993) A Dynamic Process Model of

service quality, From Expectations to Behavioural Intentions. Journal of Marketing Research

30 (February): 7-27


Botterill, T. D. (1987) Dissatisfaction with a construction of Satisfaction, Annals of Tourism

Research 14: 139-141

Bojanic, D. and Rosen, D. L. (1995) Measuring Service Quality in Restaurants: An

Application of the Servqual Instrument, Hospitality Research Journal, 18, (1):3-14

Crompton, L. J., and Love, L. L. (1995) The Predictive Validity of Alternative Approaches

to Evaluating Quality of a Festival. Journal of Travel Research 34 (1) Summer: 11-25

Day, R. (1977) Consumer satisfaction, dissatisfaction and complaining behaviour, In

Symposium Proceedings, School of Business, University of Indiana,

Danaher, P. J. and Haddrell, V. (1996). A comparison of question scales used for measuring

customer satisfaction, International Journal of Service Industry Management, 17 (4): 4-26

Danaher, P. J. and Mattsson, J. (1994). Customer Satisfaction during the Service Delivery

Process, European Journal of Marketing, 28 (5): 5-16

Dorfman, P. W. (1979). Measurement and Meaning of Recreation Satisfaction: A Case study

in camping. Environment and Behaviour 11 (4):483-510

Duke, C. R and Persia, A. M. (1996), “Performance-Importance Analysis of Escorted Tour

Evaluations”, Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing, Vol. 5 No. 3, pp. 207-223

Engel, J. F., Kollat, T. D. Blackwell, R. D. (1968) Consumer Behaviour, New York: Holt,

Rineheart and Winston

Festinger, L. (1957) A theory of Cognitive Dissonance, Stanford, CA: Stanford University

Press

Ennew, T. C., Reed, V. G., and Binks, R. M. (1993) Importance-performance analysis and

the Measurement of service quality, European Journal of Marketing, 27, (2): 59-70

Fick, G. R and Ritchie, B. J. R. (1991), “Measuring Service Quality in the Travel and

Tourism Industry”, Journal of Travel Research, Fall, pp. 2-9

Getty, M. J., and Thomson, N. K. (1994) The Relationship between quality, satisfaction, and

Recommending Behaviour in Lodging Decisions, Journal of Hospitality and Leisure

Marketing, 2, (3), 3-22

Gronroos, C. (1993) Toward a third phase in service quality research: challenges and

directions. in Swart, et al. (Eds.) Advances in Service Marketing and Management, 2, JAI

Press, Greenwich, CT, 49-64

Halstead, D., Hartman, D., and Schmidt, L. S. (1994) Multi source Effects on the Satisfaction

Formation Process. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 22 (2): 114-129

Halstead, D. (1993) Exploring the concept of retrieved expectations, Journal of Consumer

Satisfaction, Dissatisfaction and Complaining Behaviour, 6, 56-62


Howard, A. J. and Sheth, N. J. (1969) The theory of buyer behaviour, Wiley, New York: 147

Iacobucci, D; Grayson, A. K.; Ostrom, A. L. 1994 The Calculus of Service Quality and

Customer Satisfaction: Theoretical and Empirical Differentiation and Integration. in

Advances in Service Marketing and Management, Swarts et al (eds) 3 JAI Press Greenwich,

CT: 1-67

Jayanti, K. R., and Ghosh, K. A. (1996) Service Value Determination: An Integrative

Perspective, Journal of Hospitality and Leisure Marketing, 3, (4): 5-25

Hughes, K. (1991) Tourist satisfaction: A Guided Tour in North Queensland, Australian

Psychologist, 26 (3): 166-171

Jayanti, R., and Jackson, A. (1991) Service Satisfaction: An Explatory Investigation of Three

Models, Advances in Consumer Research, 18, 603-610

Johns, N. and Tyas, P. (1996) Use of Service Quality Gap Theory to Differentiate between

Foodservice Outlets, The Service Industries Journal, 16 (3): 321-346

Lounsburry, L. W. and Hoopes, L. L. (1985) An Investigation of factors Associated with

Vacation Satisfaction, Journal of Leisure Research 17: 1-13

Lewis, R.C. and Chambers, E.R. (1989) Marketing leadership in hospitality, Van Nostrad,

New York

Lewis, R.C. and Chambers, E.R. (1989) Marketing leadership in hospitality, Van Nostrad,

New York

McGill, L. A. and Iacobucci, D. (1992) The Role of Post-Experience Comparison Standards

in the Evaluation of Unfamiliar Services, Advances in Consumer Research, 19, 570-578

Mazursky, D. (1989) Past Experience and Future Tourism Decisions, Annals of Tourism

Research, 16: 333-344

Mautinho, L. 1987 Consumer Behaviour in tourism, European Journal of Marketing 21 (10):

5-44

Olander, F., (1979) Consumer Satisfaction: A Sceptic’s view. Aarhus Denmark

Parasuraman, A. Zeithaml, A. V. and Berry, L. L. (1988) Servqual: a Multiple Item Scale for

Measuring Consumer Perceptions of Service Quality Journal of Retailing, 64, Spring, 12-40

Pearce, P. L. (1980) A Favorability-satisfaction model of tourists’ evaluations. Journal of

Travel Research, Summer:13-17


Pearce, P.L. (1991) Introduction, The Tourism Psychology, Australian Psychologist 26

(3):145-46

Reisinger, Y., and Waryszak, Z. R. (1994) Tourists’ perceptions of service in shops,

International Journal of Retail and Distribution Management, 22 (5): 20-28

Saleh, F. and Ryan, C. (1991) Analysing Service Quality in the Hospitality Industry Using

the Servqual Model, Service Industries Journal, 11, (3), 324-345

Sherif, M., and Hovland, C. I. (1961) Social judgements: Assimilation and contrast effects in

communication and attitude change, New Haven, Yale University Press

Smith, M. A. (1995) Measuring service quality: is Servqual now redundant, Journal of

Marketing Management, 11: 257-276

Swan, J. E., and Martin, S. (1981) Testing comparison level and predictiveexpectations

model of satisfaction, In Kenth, B. (Ed) Advances in Consumer Research, Ann Arbor, MI:

Association for Consumer Research, 77-82

Teas, R. k. (1994) Expectations as a comparison standard in measuring service quality: an

assessment of a reassessment, Journal of Marketing, 58, 132-139

Westerbrook, R. A., and Newman, W. (1978) An Analysis of Shopper Dissatisfaction for

Major Household Appliances, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 15, (August), 456-66

Zeithaml, V. A. (1981) How consumer evaluation process differ between goods and services,

Advances in Consumer Research, 186-190

Yüksel, A. and Rimmington, M. (1998) Customer Satisfaction Measurement: Performance

Counts, The Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, December

Williams, C. (1998) Is the Servqual model an appropriate management tool for measuring

service delivery quality in the UK leisure industry, Managing Leisure, 3: 98-110

Anderson, E. R. (1973). Consumer dissatisfaction: the effect of disconfirmed

expectancy on perceived product performance, Journal of Marketing Research, 10, 38-44.

Barsky, J. D. (1992). Customer Satisfaction in Hotel Industry: Meaning and

Measurement, Hospitality Research Journal, 16, 51-73.


Barsky, J. D. & Labagh, R. (1992). A Strategy for Customer Satisfaction, The

Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, October, 32-40.

Bearden, W.O. & Teel, E.J. (1983). Selected Determinants of Consumer

Satisfaction and Complaint Reports, Journal of Marketing Research, 20, 21-28.

Bitner, M. J. (1990). Evaluating Service Encounters: The Effect of Physical

Surrounding and Employee Responses, Journal of Marketing, 54, 69-82.

Brown, J. T., Churchill, A. G. & Peter, P. L. 1993 Improving the Measurement of

Service Quality. Journal of Retailing, 69 (1), 127-139.

Cadotte, E. R., Woodruff, R. B ., & Jenkins, R. J. (1987). Expectations and Norms

in Models of Consumer Satisfaction Journal of Marketing Research 24, 305-14.

Cardozo, R. (1965). An experimental study of consumer effort, expectations and

satisfaction, Journal of Marketing Research, 2, 244-9.

Carman, J. M. (1990). Consumer Perceptions of Service Quality: An Assessment of

the SERVQUAL Dimensions, Journal of Retailing, 66, 35-55.

Cho, B-H. (1998). Assessing Tourist Satisfaction: an exploratory study of Korean

youth tourists in Australia, Tourism Recreation Research, 23, (1), 47-54.

Chon, K. (1992). Self image/ destination image congruity, Annals of Tourism

Research, 19 (2), 360-376.

Chon, K. & Olsen, M/ D. (1991). Functional and Symbolic congruity approaches to

consumer satisfaction/ dissatisfaction in consumerism, Journal of the International Academy

of Marketing Research, 1, 2-23.

Chon, K., Christianson, J. D., & Chin-Lin, L. (1998). Modeling Tourist satisfaction:

Japanese Tourists’ evaluation of hotel stay experience in Taiwan, Australian Journal of

Hospitality Management, 2 (1), 1-6.


Churchill, G. R. & Surprenant, C. (1982). An Investigation into Determinants of

Customer Satisfaction. Journal of Marketing Research 19, 491-504.

Cote, J. A., Foxman, E. R., & Cutler, B. D. (1989). Selecting an appropriate

standard of comparison for post-purchase evaluations, Advances in Consumer Research, 16,

502-506.

Cronin, J .J. Jr. & Taylor, S. A. (1992). Measuring Service Quality: A Re-

examination and Extension. Journal of Marketing 56, 55-68.

Danaher, P. J., & Arweiler, W. (1996). Customer satisfaction in the tourism

industry, a case study of visitors to New Zealand, Journal of Travel Research, 89-93

Davidow, H. W. & Uttal, B. (1990). Total Customer service: the Ultimate Weapon,

Harpercollins, New York.

Erevelles, S. & Leavitt, C. (1992). A Comparison of Current Models of Consumer

Satisfaction / Dissatisfaction Journal of Consumer Satisfaction /Dissatisfaction and

Complaining Behavior, 5, 104-114.

Fishbein, M. & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention, and behavior: an

introduction to theory and research, MA. Addison-Wesley Publishing Company.

Fisk, R. P., nd Coney, A. K. (1982). Postchoice evaluation: an equity theory

analysis of consumer satisfaction and dissatisfaction with service choicesIn Hunt, H.K., and

Day, L. R. (Eds) Conceptual and Empirical Contributions to Consumer Satisfaction and

Dissatisfaction and Complaining Behavior, Bloomington, IN: Indiana University School of

Business, 9-16.

Folkes, V. A. (1988). Recent Attribution Research in Consumer Behavior: A review

and New Directions, Journal of Consumer Research, 14, March, 548-565.


Folkes, V. A. (1984). Consumer reactions to product failure, an attributional

approach, Journal of Consumer Research, 10, 398-409.

Helson, H. (1964) Adaptation-level theory, New York, Harper and Row.

Hemmasi, M., Strong, C. K., & Taylor, A. S. (1996). Measuring service quality for

strategic planning and analysis in service firms, Journal of Applied Business Research, 10

(4), 24-35.

Huang, C. H., & Smith, K. (1996). Complaint Management: Customers’

Attributions Regarding Service Disconfirmation in Restaurants, Journal of Restaurant and

Foodservice Marketing, 1 (3/4), 121-134.

Kivela, J. (1998). Dining satisfaction & its impact on return patronage in Hong-

Kong, Third Annual Conference on Graduate Eductaion and Graduate Student Research.

LaTour, S. T. & Peat, N. C. (1979). Conceptual and Methodological issues in

consumer satisfaction research, Advances in Consumer Research, 6, 431-437.

Martilla, J., & James, J. (1978). Importance-performance analysis, Journal of

Marketing, 41, 77-79.

Meyer, A. & Westerbarkey, P. (1996). Measuring and Managing Hotel Guest

Satisfaction., in Olsen, D. M., Teare, R. & Gummesson, E. (Eds.) Service Quality in

Hospitality Organisations, Cassell, New York, NY, 185-204.

Oh, H. & Parks, C. S. (1997). Customer Satisfaction and Service Quality: A critical

Review of the Literature and Research Implications for the Hospitality Industry, Hospitality

Research Journal, 20 (3), 36-64.

Oliver, L. R. (1997). Satisfaction a behavioral perspective on the consumer, The

McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. New York.


Oliver, R. L. (1993). A Conceptual Model of Service Quality and Service

Satisfaction: Compatible Goals and Different Concepts, In Swart, T. A., Bowen, D. E., and

Brown, S. W. (eds.) Advances in Service Marketing and Management, 3, JAI Press,

Greenwich, CT, 65-86.

Oliver, L. R., & Swan, E. J. (1989). Consumer perceptions of interpersonal equity

and satisfaction in transactions: a field survey approach, Journal of Marketing, 53, 21-35

Oliver. R. L. (1980). A Cognitive Model of the Antecedents of Satisfaction

Decisions, Journal of Marketing Research, 17, 46-49.

Oliver, L. R. (1977). Effect of expectation and disconfirmation on post exposure

product evaluations: an alternative interpretation, Journal of Applied Psychology, 62 (4), 480-

486.

Oliver R. L. & DeSarbo, W. S. (1988). Response Determinants in Satisfaction

Judgment, Journal of Consumer Research, 14, 495- 507.

Olshavsky, R., & Miller, J. (1972). Consumer expectations, product performance

and perceived product quality, Journal of Marketing Research, 9, 19-21.

Pearce, L. P. & Moscardo, M. G. (1984). Making Sense of Tourists’ Complaints,

Tourism Management, 20-23.

Pizam, A. & Milman, A. (1993). Predicting Satisfaction Among First Time Visitors

to a Destination by Using the Expectancy Disconfirmation Theory, International Journal of

Hospitality Management, 12, 197-209.

Prakash, V. & Lounsbury, W. J. (1992). A Reliability Problem in the Measurement

of Disconfirmation of Expectations, In Bagozzi, P. R. & Tybout , M. A. (Eds.), Advances in

Consumer Research, 10, 244-249.


Reisineger, Y., & Turner, L. (1997). Tourist Satisfaction with Hosts: A Cultural

Approach Comparing Thai tourists and Australian Hosts, Pacific Tourism Review, 1, 147-

159.

Richins, M. L. (1985). Factors affceting the level of consumer initiated complaints

to marketing organisations, In Hunt, K. H., & Day, L. R. (Eds) Consumer Satisfaction,

Dissatisfaction and Complaining Behavior, Bloomington, IN: Indiana University School of

Business, 2-8.

Sirgy, J. M. (1984). A social cognition model of CS/D: an experiment, Psychology,

and Marketing, 1, 27-44.

Spreng, R. A, Mackenzie, S. B. & Olshavsky, R. W. (1996). A reexamination of the

determinants of consumer satisfaction, Journal of Marketing, 60, 15-32.

Swan, J. & Oliver, R.L. (1989). Consumers Perception of Interpersonal Equity and

Satisfaction in Transaction: A Field Survey Approach. Journal of Marketing, 53, 21-35.

Swan J. E & Trawick, I. F. (1981). Disconfirmation of expectations and satisfaction

with a retail service, Journal of Retailing, 57, 49-7.

Teas, R. K. (1993a). Consumer Expectations and The Measurement of Perceived

Service Quality, Journal of Professional Services Marketing, 8 (2), 35-54.

Thibaut, J. W., & Kelly, K. H. (1959). The social psychology of groups, New York,

John Wiley and Sons, Inc.

Tribe, J. & Snaith, T. (1998). From Servqual to Holsat: holiday satisfaction in

Varadero, Cuba. Tourism Management 19, 125-34.

Tse, D. K. & Wilton, C. P. (1988). Models Of Customer Satisfaction Formation: An

Extension, Journal of Marketing Research, 25, 204-212


Weber, K. (1997). Assessment of Tourist Satisfaction, Using the Expectancy

disconfirmation theory, a study of German Travel Market in Australia, Pacific Tourism

Review, 1, 35-45.

Weiner, B., Frieze, I., Kukla, A., & Reed, L. (1971). Perceiving the causes success

and failure, Morristown, NJ: General Learning Press.

Westbrook, R. A., & Reilly, M. D., (1983). Value-Percept disparity: an alternative

to the disconfirmation of expectations theory of customer satisfaction, in Bogozzi, P. R. and

Tybouts, A. (eds) Advances in Consumer Research, Association for Consumer Research, 10,

Ann Arbor, MI: 256-61.

Whipple, W. T., & Thach, V. S. (1988). Group Tour Management: Does Good

Service Produce Satisfied Customers, Journal of Travel Research, 16-21.

Woodruff, R. B.; Ernest, R. C.; Jenkins, R. L. (1983). Modeling Consumer

Satisfaction Processes Using Experience-Based Norms, Journal of Marketing Research, 20,

296-304.

Yi. Y. (1990). A Critical Review of Consumer Satisfaction, in V. A. Zeithaml (Ed.),

Review of Marketing, Chicago: American Marketing Association, 68-123.

Documents

Chpt4 ThConsumer Satisfaction Theories a Critical Revieweories (1)